North pole to melt this year?

it's funny...we may indeed reach a new high temperature this year (though that is looking far less likely based upon the slow development of this El Nino), but once it is over, if we have another solid La Nina, it should make up for the El Nino. At that point, we will be over 20 years with no warming in the RSS and past 17 years in 2 of the other indices. I think something key will happen psychologically when the major temperature indices start passing 20 years. I am so curious to see if more scientists come out critical of AGW. It has seemed that for the past 2-3 years there has been more of that, but I sort of expect it to increase as we pass the 20 year mark.

On the other hand, if we do start cooling, we could get there a bit faster than the 2 years we need for the RSS. But all of this may be vain speculation on my part as we may start to warm again and the plateau may cease to be a plateau.
 
yes, it is indeed true. i have been reading Goddard for years and he has posted this many times. seems people are slowly waking up to the shenanigans. i think the media is VERy slow to turn over their predilections, but eventually there will be some courageous ones who will do it. i even admit to being impressed with the honesty of the Washington Post on this issue at times....i still say that if we can go another 2-4 years with no warming, all bets are off. i think the entire thing falls apart.
 
ru-roh: The Link

How can there be record low in arctic, earlier, and record high in antarctic recent? Does this mean we need to use global measures of ice extent instead of picking and choosing to support or discredit?
The Link
 
what makes it even funnier is that 90% of ALL ice on planet earth is in Antarctica. That includes Greenland and every glacier on every mountain....90% of all ice is still on the continent of Antarctica (and the surrounding sea ice obviously).
 
yeah, there is a scandal erupting within the data that threatens to grow quite large. The adjustments have long seemed quite shady. We always manage to cool the past and warm the present. Now this fact is coming to light. If it turns out that 20-40% of our "warming" is merely tampering with the data, this will be another nail in the coffin of the quickly dying theory of AGW/ACC.
 
Mop,

I love science. Every branch of science fascinates me. I'm a geek about physics, earth science, biology, physical cosmology, oceanography, particle physics - I even love statistics and was a stats TA in grad school. You name it, I'm a geek.

That is why it's so infuriating to be derided as a "science denier" because I happen to bring a critical perspective on the theory of AGW. The heresy of looking at theories critically...hell, I should be burned at the stake according to these folks. I also detest the notion that if you doubt AGW, that you don't care about the environment...or our children. Ridiculousness.

The question I have is, given a critical mass of contradictaory data how can there be some 97% consensus in the scientific community on this? Maybe the theory of AGW is correct, but it defies logic to say we are almost as near certain of AGW as we are about the Law of Gravity. BTW we don't fully completely understand how that force works or its origin either. I think if you ask the most respected physicist in the world to give his most comprehensive explanation of Gravity, I doubt 97% of all scientists would agree that it was unimpeachable.

Honestly, it seems like the "sheep" in this topic are all the low information consumers who just gulp down whatever their popular left of center masters feed them. (not referring to Pharm who obviously has taken the time to look at a lot of data and personally come to his own conclusion)
 
Pharm seems to only show up when he can post a "gotcha" article or to basically say that we should all trust the scientists...which seems fairly lame to me, but he can speak to that.

But I totally agree with you. Please rest assured that any claims to 97% consensus are pure unadulterated rubbish. Those studies started with an agenda and then twisted and mangled the data to come up with their statistics. For instance, the most famous claim of 97% was based on a poll with only 2 questions, both of which MANY skeptics would have answered "yes" to, then it had 1000's of responses but decided to rule out many areas of expertise to come up with pure "climate scientists" (of course these methods, ironically, would have ruled out responses by Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt and MANY other of the most well-respected pro-AGW scientists) until it had only 77 scientists left. Of that very tortured data set, 75 had said "yes" to both questions and the claim was presented to the world that 97% of all climate scientists agree with global warming. Oftentimes the descriptor "climate scientists" is dropped and the claim becomes "97% of all scientists agree" with global warming.

Lawrence Solomon National Post...Full story
 
so it looks like the sea ice is tracking fairly well with last year so far. It should be interesting as we move later into the summer. I am curious to know what will happen. The 30% graph is my favorite because it looks at the more substantial areas of ice coverage. Here is where it is currently:

30% sea ice coverage
 
so last year's recovery was quite interesting and, to me at least, entirely unexpected. But one year a trend does not make. Having said that, what made last year so impressive is that the ice rebounded above any year since this thread started. In fact, it rebounded above any year from 2007 forward, which was astounding considering 2012 was the lowest year on record by a good margin. This means, that the ice at the end of last years' melt season was above any end of season ice record from this entire 6 year thread. So this is the time of year when ice melt gets very interesting. i am not sure what will happen, but am willing to watch this a bit more closely with you. I found an excellent new graph which shows nicely how the Sea-ice in the arctic has looked since 1979. Here it is...

Arctic Sea Ice graph back to 1979
 
so far this year's ice melt is still tracking ahead of last year's considerable recovery. If we continue on the path we are on, we could see ice rebound to 2006 levels. That would be quite interesting to find ourselves, for the first time on this entire 6 year long thread, at having MORE sea ice than when we began. but i am definitely getting ahead of myself. there is PLENTY of time left for a sudden and dramatic melt off.

30% concentration of Arctic Sea Ice
 
ok...now i feel sort of dumb. Turns out LAST year's minimum was above 2008, so we have already surpassed the sea-ice at the beginning of this thread, but it would be funny to build on that.
 
with another day in the books, we are still tracking above 2013 on the 30% concentration graph which puts us VERY close to 2005 and 2006....at least for now. This could obviously all change on any given week.
 
it's only been 3 days but the 30% of ice level has grown considerably rather than shrinking, but this seems to be about the time each summer when the ice melt goes flat for a few days, so nothing too unusual there. What is interesting is that we are now tracking considerably above last year and have cut through every year going back to about 2005. Having said that, a low pressure system is threatening to do some damage in the next week.

30% ice

30% ice compared to the last 9 years

15% sea ice extent

15% ice extent going back to 2002
 
since this thread started, the Arctic has now lost 125,000 square miles of the sea ice it had on the same day in 2008. It should be interesting to see how it progresses. Predictions by the National Ice Center are that we will have more ice at the end of this season than in 2008 (as we did last year).
 
incidentally, i was being generous to the other side of the argument by using this graph (which I love by the way!)

Northern Hemisphere Ice extent Cryosphere Today

meanwhile the Danish Meteorological Institute 30% graph shows the opposite, I prefer this graph because it is holding a higher standard of ice concentration at 30%. This year is already above 2008's sea ice extent for this time of year...at least as of when I am posting this on July 29, 2014. These things can obviously change quickly this time of year:



Danish Meteorological Institute 30% sea ice extent
 
If you want to know what is going on...I encourage you to click the links from my previous post. After 4 more days, the Arctic has hardly melted. This is a bit surprising for this time of year. I expect it to start racing down any day, but for now it continues to surprise me.
 
we have a good 6 weeks left of melting (possibly less?) and the ice has continued to more or less track last year, 2005 and 2006. It is a judgment call at this point whether or not we will see more or less sea ice than last year, but it seems at least 50/50. what seems a bit more certain and equally problematic for AGW theory (at least if we rattle off a few more years of this) is that the volume of ice seems to be growing. I base that statement upon the multi year ice (MYI) which has increased significantly over the past 3 years (despite 2012 being the lowest year on record for sea ice in the Arctic). With something around 40 days left of melting...i am very intrigued as to where this will end in mid-september. the post 2 above this one is fine for checking on the ice...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top